What do you think about having 3 age groups for closed scholarships (<=35, 36-50 and 51+, or something along these lines instead of <=45, 46+)? My local competition just did that this year. If I were still in the <=35 group, I would not be happy, because that group is usually underrepresented, so there is even less competition. On other hand, for some ppl I know this worked out better, because they did not have to pick who gets to do a scholarship, they just had to decide who dances down in age.

I thought they usually have 2 age groups for scholarships and 3 for dancesport series stuff. Now some are splitting up the scholarship categories to match dancesport series, although probably it is done based on feedback from teachers with multiple students on the same level, or in hopes that this will encourage more entries.

Most competitions I've been to have A and B scholarship categories, with the split at 45. There was one which had none, but AFAIK they have changed it to have A and B as they got larger. I like it better for selfish reasons because my teacher has another lady who dances same level as I do, so she does B and I do A. If we went to a comp which does not have A and B scholarships, one of us could do open, I suppose. But having A, B and C in scholarships for a medium-sized comp seems a tad excessive. I did a competition with such categories in 2007, when I was still in A age group. I was uncontested for that, while there were 7 in B scholarship. I found that annoying (not to mention the fact that they halved prize money, as if it is my fault that there were not enough competitors under 36).

I personally wouldn't like the whole underrepresented thing, since I am an A and will be for many, many more years. But in the interest of fairness and also keeping things interesting to watch, I'd love a narrower split. For one thing, it's not quite fair to make a 45-year-old dance against a 16-year-old, as was the case at my studio just a couple years ago (16 year old prodigy--now only 18, for that matter--but no juniors to compete against, so he danced Adult A), and for another, an older Pro-Am couple is going to bring something entirely different to the floor than a younger one. Better to keep things grouped closer together, IMO.

I'm at the other end and while I appreciate the sentiment I mostly hate it when there is no competition at all! The multi-division multi-age split is, as I see it, purely there to allow a pro to dance with a lot of ams and has little to do with dance. The reason i say that is that there are typically very few age divisions in AM dancing where there is no such need.

That said, I agree that you do need some reasonable minimal divisions - and perhaps AM is where to look. We have a host of groups under 19 and then open, over 35, 0ver 45 and over 50. However many of the latter compete effectively in the over 35s so there is quite a lot of intermixing.

Whats never discussed is: should there be an age division for the pros too? After all in the schollarship/dancesport series pro/ams are judged as a couple. Is it fair to put a 60 yr pro against a 30yr old one?

I personally wouldn't like the whole underrepresented thing, since I am an A and will be for many, many more years. But in the interest of fairness and also keeping things interesting to watch, I'd love a narrower split. For one thing, it's not quite fair to make a 45-year-old dance against a 16-year-old, as was the case at my studio just a couple years ago (16 year old prodigy--now only 18, for that matter--but no juniors to compete against, so he danced Adult A), and for another, an older Pro-Am couple is going to bring something entirely different to the floor than a younger one. Better to keep things grouped closer together, IMO.

I personally wouldn't like the whole underrepresented thing, since I am an A and will be for many, many more years. But in the interest of fairness and also keeping things interesting to watch, I'd love a narrower split. For one thing, it's not quite fair to make a 45-year-old dance against a 16-year-old, as was the case at my studio just a couple years ago (16 year old prodigy--now only 18, for that matter--but no juniors to compete against, so he danced Adult A), and for another, an older Pro-Am couple is going to bring something entirely different to the floor than a younger one. Better to keep things grouped closer together, IMO.

I personally wouldn't like the whole underrepresented thing, since I am an A and will be for many, many more years. But in the interest of fairness and also keeping things interesting to watch, I'd love a narrower split. For one thing, it's not quite fair to make a 45-year-old dance against a 16-year-old, as was the case at my studio just a couple years ago (16 year old prodigy--now only 18, for that matter--but no juniors to compete against, so he danced Adult A), and for another, an older Pro-Am couple is going to bring something entirely different to the floor than a younger one. Better to keep things grouped closer together, IMO.

Btw, depending on the categories I can be either A or B. If there are just <=45 & 45+. I will be an A for a while, if there are <=35, 36-50 and 51+, I am a B (and will stay there for a while, too).

Whats never discussed is: should there be an age division for the pros too? After all in the schollarship/dancesport series pro/ams are judged as a couple. Is it fair to put a 60 yr pro against a 30yr old one?

Do you really think it would really happened?? I doubt it. All age category is happening at the amateur level, not in pro. My question is how you can decide if the pro is 60, but the am is 25, what age group we need to put them in??

Whats never discussed is: should there be an age division for the pros too? After all in the schollarship/dancesport series pro/ams are judged as a couple. Is it fair to put a 60 yr pro against a 30yr old one?

Do you really think it would really happened?? I doubt it. All age category is happening at the amateur level, not in pro. My question is how you can decide if the pro is 60, but the am is 25, what age group we need to put them in??

I personally wouldn't like the whole underrepresented thing, since I am an A and will be for many, many more years. But in the interest of fairness and also keeping things interesting to watch, I'd love a narrower split. For one thing, it's not quite fair to make a 45-year-old dance against a 16-year-old, as was the case at my studio just a couple years ago (16 year old prodigy--now only 18, for that matter--but no juniors to compete against, so he danced Adult A), and for another, an older Pro-Am couple is going to bring something entirely different to the floor than a younger one. Better to keep things grouped closer together, IMO.

I thought you can't dance up in age.

He's not--you can technically start dancing in Adult A at 16. It's just that most kids don't.